Safe Speed Forums

I think the very fact that you were able to watch that news item shows that the answer is clearly "yes". I'm sure that footage and probably video from other cameras present will be very useful to the police in conducting their prosecution.

Having said that, the incident shown there can't by any stretch of the imagination be said to represent a typical morning commute to work.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

I think the problem we’ve had here is that it isn’t as black and white as at first seemed. We are relating our own experiences from where we ride in our city, town or countryside with various road widths and driver attitudes etc. and because mine differ from that of, let’s say, riding in London I can’t relate to it just like others can’t relate to where I am.

So it could be that we are all correct but a different place demands a different style of riding. Whether it’s me, Grumps, Megatron, Steve, dcb, Claire, weepej or JtB - we are alive and here so we must all be doing something right, right?

And that’s good, and a nice peaceful healing post I hope.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Have you ever considered going into marriage guidence counselling (for others as a counsellor, I mean), Tone?....lol

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.

I do ride it, a lot,I was being facetious that it hangs on the wall and stays there. But I don't leave my road bike anywhere other than home or securely locked up inside work, i.e. not out in public; I use the boris bikes if I want to go somewhere as they can be docked.



Nope, you might wish they were if you got on one though!



£45.00 for a year's membership, and then if you manage to spend less than half an hour between getting it out and docking it it's free, between 30 mins and 60 mins it's a quid. It's not a bike rental scheme per sé.

It's my idea of a nightmare weepeej; I don't know how you do it. If I was not near the countryside I'd kill myself. I need to be near mother nature, and I don't just mean a park.

Being in amongst the city enemy and so confined brings out the worst in people. If I make old bones and have the money to retire I won't be posting from where I am and that's a cert!

It's neither natural nor conducive to well-being to live in a concrete overcrowded jungle. Why place yourself in the fire when there are places in the frying pan or better still the salad bowl...

Nice of you to say but I’d be terrible because I would get too involved. It’s why I thought of going into the police force but reconsidered because I know I’d take it home with me and wouldn’t be able to sleep at night; much like now I guess..

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

A pearl of wisom from the Wail.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ttack.html

And for added weight, I found this on a certain other bad driving site. NOTE- Original maledictions edited out.

On 10 February, 2011, I was driving along the Antrim Road in the direction of Glengormley and eventually approached Bellvue Zoo. I observed a cyclist close to the outer wall of the zoo. I slowed down in preparation to pass by him safely and indicated right in order to overtake him and in so doing, leave the cyclist enough room to fall. What did I see in my rear-view mirror but an idiot driver flashing his lights at me because I was intent upon showing consideration to the cyclist.

Okay Nissan Micra driver, I denounce you as a moron and an inconsiderate one at that. Like it or not, the Highway Code defines a cyclist as a legitimate road user and as such I should show them consideration. What do you think I should do you Micra-driving idiot? Speed up to him and force him off his bike? Or perhaps cram him into a solid stone wall? I'll do neither so don't flash your lights at me you moron!

_________________
Anyone who tells you that nothing is impossible has never bathed in a saucer of water.

Which rules are not described ? Or were you talking generally and not being specific ?
I agree most road users are courteous towards cyclists. I am interested in the way in which you phrase this last part of the sentence as it comes across as being rather biased IMO. Surely the cyclist stays left for a host of reasons. When I cycle left it is because; it is safest, that is 'where I will be expected to be found', it enables me to travel along at my own pace with least interaction with other traffic (inc foot traffic), there is space there for me to travel, I am out of the way to most other road users .. and so on. So I wonder why you phrase it that you do so, to allow cars to pass by? Is that your only reason ? If it is, then why does that, (dare I say) 'attitude', shine to the fore, when there are many reasons? Might this lie totally at the heart of how you perceive other road users, that is 'to be allowed or not allowed'. How did that perception become formed ? Is it from lack of awareness?
That is presumed assumption.
Humm there is this attitude again. You see, to assume that they drove badly just to 'save seconds' is assuming, that they fully assessed the situation, and chose to drive badly, including deciding to risk 'your' life and potentially their licence, and that is really a lot of assumption, people never go out to have an accident (unless suicidal, insane and other rare exceptions). I would have to assess from this that it is in fact unlikely to be the case (just to save seconds). Far more likely is that they were not paying attention and acted at the last minute, trying to do all they could to make a bad situation better, having messed up. Your last vid with the BMW I think is exactly that. To me you need to be in control earlier that you think, not later as you 'do' (sometimes - I don't know all your riding of course), and to assess the potential pinch points, and the best most helpful ways in which to deal with it. That may vary from day to day, you might get so good at it, that you can work into the traffic flows better and opt out earlier too. In fact be in greater control but on another level altogether.
Has anyone ever videoed you from behind, I'd love to see the developing situations prior to your vid input. Perhaps it might be that we could meet up and take one of these routes and see fro myself what can be done ?

That is just a scared reaction to not understanding how situations arise in the first place. It is all 'reactionary' even over-reaction than planning and allowing for 'x'. So a lack of anticipation and planning. Most vehicles come up behind you and I agree you can sometimes have little to 'go on' but there are clues. Listening to traffic helps you figure out what is going to happen in a minute sometimes and what vehicles are on their way!
Being on a bike has various advantages - to start with your height helps to see the driver / rider better and for longer and your usually slower speed give you more time to observe the car especially in traffic, when you 'meet, go and re-meet' from junction to junction, also you can stop on a 6pence.
Simply not for that reason. A cyclist might need to temporarily pull out to get past a stopped vehicle and so the pinch point would otherwise become the (dreaded) closing gap (highly dangerous situ), with the main traffic flow, so it becomes necessary to pull out into the traffic and for the shortest distance possible, slow it, while the cyclist passes the problem. This is assuming in this situ., that there is no (chosen) alternative (for a major rd with pavement, then going onto the pavement (walking) maybe the best and safest.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Really a wrong diagnosis. Whilst we might not know the competency of (all) other road users, it is absolutely not being responsible by blocking anothers actions. In fact doing so might lead to all sorts of ongoing and dangerous effects, like road-rage, or cause someone to swerve causing an accident etc .... Never ever deliberately cause another road user to change path, direction or speed, because of your own actions, unless it is an emergency situation and there is absolute just cause.
Of course we could end up with :
The bad attitude selfish horse rider who see that the person just crossing the road might cause them some danger so 'takes charge' and prevents them from crossing them into 'their' lane, which then leaves the pedestrian stranded crossing the road, and the cyclist, in PP is then on a collision course because he was out in PP because he was going 35mph, and he now has to go either side of the Ped who is now stuck to know where best to go, the motorbike fast approaching the scene sees that he must immediately slow to a stop which he does, allowing the Ped confidence to stop while the cyclist flies past the Ped and carries on .... the horse-rider carries on in the belief that they made things safer !

OK it would be terrible and all horse riders that I know would stop to allow the Ped to cross the road as neigh most would do too, but it highlights the serious problem if we were to all start to stop others because we thought we know more than they do approach. It is a highly dangerous path to follow.
I do think that when Steve said[/quote], it is something that we all do is 'slow for safety', many highly aware drivers who might go faster than most also go slower than most too, because they appraise danger better as they are more aware and anticipate better. No one likes to loose momentum and for cyclist it can be a little while before the pace is back up again, but this is true of every road user and at times we have probably all experienced it too. But to slow we must and to often go slower to safety is a regular occurrence and the busier the traffic becomes and the more cyclists there are too, the more cyclists will have to slow too.
It has been said before, but this thread highlights the fact that some (or is it many) cyclists either don't care about whether cycle lanes exist or not?
However is there a group of cyclists that do like them, and like to use them, and choose to do so often? Have they tried to solve a problem that didn't exist? (again!)
Is the problem for 'experienced cyclists' that they like to travel quickly, and so do not want to be classed as a beginner 'assisted' cyclist? Are cycle lanes perceived to be for the less capable ?
On another point - talking about edges of roads that drop off quickly - I have seen many roads in Norfolk that drop off so quickly and steeply, if you road to the side of the road you will think that you are on a roller-coaster they are so bad!

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

As a matter if interest when that cyclist 'holds' you up, have you already assessed that his path was going to hold you up, and that you had already slowed or stopped to allow for it ?
I doubt that few motorists notice your helmet cam. Some who do might think it a light but I doubt many will even notice it. They don't need to observe you that well.

DJC

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Now please don’t shoot me down in flames for this.


I went to Wolverhampton today and on my way I saw something new I hadn’t seen before. It seems to be suggesting that the cyclist stays close to the curb, (but not grovelling in it), and motorists’ should leave plenty of space for the cyclist.

Sounds good to me.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I am not sure that is any kind of Legal sign but new one's are added to the (full) HC from time to time. I take it to simply mean leave more than a car's width when passing cyclists, which is unreasonable and I question the validity of this sign. I would expect any HC sing to be much clearer and with a width as it will then be enforceable when required.
I would ask Wolverhampton Council if it is a valid and legal sign? If it isn't then it ought to be removed immediately.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

Generally really. but one example is the use of headlight flashing to mean things other than "visible warning of approach", and another is the use of a hand signal to say "you go first". Neither of these is in the HC, but both are commonly used.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Not at all; you are rather "reading between the lines" there, which is not appropriate because I don't write anything between the lines. I don't need to add anything here because I wrote what I meant; no more and no less.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

There are some key points that I would like to make, though.

I am not perfect, though I am learning all the time. I think Mags's point is highly valid: "hindsight; makes average cyclists into perfect cyclists" ( or words to that effect).

As you implied, there are times when I haven't taken control of a situation early enough; effectively riding in too timid a fashion. I am learning when it is important to act earlier, and getting a lot from the videos in that respect. The BMW incident is, as you say, an example. After studying this case more and trying things out on the road, I am now generally taking PP from the lights until the difficult area is passed and that seems to be working well.

I does seem that when I express a point of view, that is "attitude", whilst your poimts of view are presented as wisdom. This is rather one-sided and does not make for useful discussion.

I agree with you absolutely about the need to understand how situations develop. Quite a few camera using cyclists also have a rear-facing camera, which is extremely useful for seeing more of situations developing. Perhaps one day I will have one too, but for the moment I have what I have.

I will continue to strive to improve my cycling, in order to minimize danger to myself and anyone else.. I am finding that I have far fewer incidemts where I feel endangered since I became more assertive on the road and stopped cowering in the gutter. That, for me, is the acid test - the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

As if ...!

I don't see a kerb in the picture. The wording "Think cyclist" suggests strongly that the sign is addressed at motorists. So it seems the main point of the sign is to get motorists to give cyclists adequate space when passing them.

However, the fact that the car is clearly overtaking the cycle with plenty of room implies that there it, at that point, adequate space to pass safely. I that is true, then one would expect the cyclist to be riding in secondary position at that point, as you suggest.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

There is telling emotional wording in that post, as well as logical fallacies.

My being rational doesn't mean I'm 'timid' and that I 'cower in the gutter'. I ride along side it (and over the grates where desirable) in order to maximise utilisation of the limited tarmac.

Your resolution of the BMW event is an example of Regression To The Mean. You said you "haven't experienced one this bad at that point before"; it is very unlikely you'll experience another within such a short timeframe (a few weeks), yet you have taken this statistical expectation as proof that your method works.

Like I said to you in an earlier post (which was never acknowledged), I would have been further into that cycle lane - that also would have given more room. In that same post I also said:

This issue wouldn't apply is you were to ride further in the cycle lane.

However, given that you are now riding PP, it now seems you are now purposely riding outside of the cycle lane at that point, when you can reasonably ride within it and be at less risk.

Your resolution is lending even further credence to my original point.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The emotion is all yours, but it is indeed telling, as indicated by:

which is a paranoid reaction to a comment I made about my own previous approach to cycling. I simply made a comparison between my previous approach and experiences and my current ones.


Your understanding of Regression to the Mean is correct. Unfortunately, you applied it to a straw-man that you created. Had I asserted simply that: "X happened to me once, so I started doing Y and since then have never had X happen to me, therefore Y prevents X", you would have been correct in calling this a fallacy. However, I never asserted that, so it is a straw-man.

In fact, my point was that X happened to me once, which made me realise that there was an issue I hadn't recognised before (being the existence of a pinch point), and that made me re-evaluate my approach. In re-evaluating that approach, I applied the principles that I believe to be correct based on all the evidence I have looked at already, and came up with a new approach. Realising that there may be other problems with the new approach, particularly the possibility of impatient drivers getting pissed-off, I tried it for a while, but so far have not had any problems. There is no fallacy in this; the only fallacy is your straw-man.


That is a big assumption without any evidence to back it up, so I will dismiss that particular assertion without argument.

Regarding "which was never acknowledged", I have told you many times the many reasons why I would not ride closer to the kerb, not least being the big pot-holes and sunken drains that you can actually see on the video. If you just keep ignoring those points and parroting the same comments over and over again, then I will ignore those comments.

[EDIT] By the way, what you actually said was: "I would have been further in. The pedestrian argument doesn't apply here. Yes I saw the grate was sunk, but I still would have been more left than you were; doing so would have left more room. In that situation I would have considered going over the grate, to give myself even more room." and my response in acknowledging that comment was: "Steve. That drain is sunken by about 4 inches (I checked this morning). If I tell you where it is will you come and ride over it on your bike and I'll take the video? It will make a nice clip for Gaz545's Silly Cyclist series."


Again, that (i.e. "...and be at less risk") is a big assumption without any evidence to back it up, so I will dismiss that particular assertion without argument.


To be honest, I'm not sure what your original point was.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Generally, yes. If I am not able to pass a cyclist leaving at least 1 metre clearance at the absolute minimum between the cyclist's handlebar and my door mirror, then I will wait until I can.

When I am in charge of a big metal box with a powerful engine, I have a very serious responsibility to ensure I don't do damage to other people with that machine, irrespective of what they, themselves do. If I were not prepared take that responsibility seriously, then I should not be driving a car; end of story!

I was pleased to see from the story earlier, about the car encountering the cyclist near the zoo, that I am not the only driver who takes that responsibility seriously, but I was not surprised to see from the same story that there are other drivers who do not.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange

Oh please:

Your language betrays you - again!


Indeed you never asserted it: I never claimed you said anything like "Y prevents X" - please don't misrepresent my posts.
However, the implication you gave was certainly clear.


Isn't that how PP advocates have been acting? </irony> Can the reader now dismiss the claims of 'it is better to keep out of cycle lanes'?

Take your own BMW example: do you really believe there wouldn't have been a greater gap between you if you were further left?


Please can you quote your text that addressed the following (that I had quoted for you):

I think you'll find you never addressed this. You (wrongly) think you have with the following:

You call that an acknowledgement? Mate - my paragraph was regarding being further out, not further in.

And you committed a strawman, be it an accidental one. I had evidently failed to properly communicate: 'You can go further left without going over the sunken portion'

Also, You were obviously aware that something was going on behind, yet you didn't go left even though you were still a full second away from the sunken grate. The bit you didn't quote: "you were still about a second away from the grate after the BMW passed you", so the other question you evaded: "I’m curious to know why you maintained position when you must have known something was amiss." I believe you didn't address this one either - something to do with your not 'answering my cross-examination'. All your arguments had already failed, you responded was dropping it altogether.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Oh, please. My language says what it says - nothing more and nothing less. It was you who, incorrectly, inferred that I was talking about you, which seems quite paranoid.


Then please explain what your accusation of regression to the mean referred to, if that was not the interpretation you were incorrectly applying.

[EDIT] Let's be clear on this. If you are going to accuse someone of making a fallacious argument, you absolutely must refer to an argument they actually made. If you refer to an argument that they did not make, but which you invented for them, that is, by definition, a straw-man.


Isn't what how PP advocates ... etc.?


I have never made such a claim. Another straw-man. It is, however better to keep out of certain cycle lanes in certain circumstances; or to put it another way, it is not safe to assume that the cycle lane is the safest place to be.


I do not have any reason to believe that the car driver would have given me more room if I had been a few inches further left. However, that is not the point. I do believe that the action of taking primary position at that point is safer than moving even closer to the kerb, especially when there are serious hazards at the side of the road there.


Ah, you do realise that you never mentioned this in the post that I just replied to? So, the answer to that is quite simple and straightforward. If I were out in the centre of the lane, the BMW would have been behind me, not trying to squeeze through a gap that he though was adequate but which clearly wasn't. I am quite sure that, despite his being an idiot, he probably wasn't a psychopath.


Your failure to communicate properly does not constitute my constructing an argument based on a straw-man. However, the point is that, in my opinion, you cannot safely go further left with that sunken drain there. I do of course have the advantage of being an eye-witness, which you are not.

The rest referred to your "cross-examination" and, call it a flaw if your like, but my reaction to that is just: who the hell do you think you are - get knotted.

Getting back to the point that I was actually making to SafeSpeedV2, I am happy with the lessons I learned from analysing the situation, including the use of the video, and am satisfied that I am probably taking the best course at that point now. If I get stopped by the Police and they say "According to Steve, this is wrong", then I'll let you know.

_________________
"That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without argument.” - Julian Assange